Slashdot Log In
FCC Commissioner Stumps For Media Diversity
Posted by
kdawson
on Wed Oct 25, 2006 06:52 AM
from the dialing-back-the-consolidation dept.
from the dialing-back-the-consolidation dept.
maynard writes, "Speaking at a New York City town hall meeting on corporate media consolidation and its deleterious impact on the expression of minority viewpoints, FCC Commissioner Michael Copps stumped against greater media concentration and instead argued for greater diversity of media outlets and voices. In 2003 the FCC, under Chairman Michael Powell, changed media ownership rules to favor greater corporate media consolidation at the expense of local owners. In an attempt to reverse totally the prior FCC policy, Mr. Copps argued strongly in favor of independent media owners. Read on for what he had to say.
Michael Copps: "The FCC is in the midst of a hugely important proceeding right now to decide what the future of our media, our TV, our radio, our newspapers, our cable, even our internet, are going to look like for a long, long time to come.
A little history, just to set the stage for our discussion. Three years ago, under then FCC Chairman Michael Powell and over the objections of my good friend Commissioner Adelstein and myself, the FCC severely cut back — really "eviscerated" is a better word — the rules that were meant to check big media's seemingly endless appetite for more consolidation. It passed new rules, which have allowed a single media giant to own in a single market up to three television stations, eight radio stations, the cable system, the cable channels, even the internet portal, and the local newspaper, which in most cities in the United States of America is already a monopoly. And the agency did all of that behind closed doors and without seeking meaningful input from the American people. Can you imagine that? Authorizing a sea change in how news and entertainment are produced and presented over the people's airwaves, without even involving the people who own those airwaves and who depend so heavily upon them. It was a near disaster for America.
Thankfully, citizens rose up across the land. They sent nearly 3 million protests to the Federal Communications Commission. Congress rose up, too, and then a federal court sent those rules back to the FCC saying they were badly flawed and they needed to be reworked. That was good, and anybody that doesn't believe that citizen action can have an effect should just revisit what happened there. We checked those rules. You checked those rules from going into effect. It was concerned citizens at work, and it was a citizen consumer victory.
But, here's a reality check now. We're right back at square one, and it's all up for grabs again. And if we're going to have a better result this time around, doing something positive for media democracy, it's going to be because of more citizen action and more input from folks like you. So, this time we need to make it an open public process, instead of hiding in our office in Washington like the majority did in 2003. This time, let all the commissioners come to New York City — I wish they were all here tonight — and let all the commissioners get out across America and find out what's happening in the real world, beyond that Beltway that they bemoan so much but seem to love staying behind so much.
So, as we begin our discussion, then begin with that simple reminder: it's all of us who own the airwaves. There is not a broadcaster, a business, a special interest, and any industry that owns one airwave in the United States of America. They belong to you, and they belong to me. And, my friends, now is the time to assert our ownership rights."
A little history, just to set the stage for our discussion. Three years ago, under then FCC Chairman Michael Powell and over the objections of my good friend Commissioner Adelstein and myself, the FCC severely cut back — really "eviscerated" is a better word — the rules that were meant to check big media's seemingly endless appetite for more consolidation. It passed new rules, which have allowed a single media giant to own in a single market up to three television stations, eight radio stations, the cable system, the cable channels, even the internet portal, and the local newspaper, which in most cities in the United States of America is already a monopoly. And the agency did all of that behind closed doors and without seeking meaningful input from the American people. Can you imagine that? Authorizing a sea change in how news and entertainment are produced and presented over the people's airwaves, without even involving the people who own those airwaves and who depend so heavily upon them. It was a near disaster for America.
Thankfully, citizens rose up across the land. They sent nearly 3 million protests to the Federal Communications Commission. Congress rose up, too, and then a federal court sent those rules back to the FCC saying they were badly flawed and they needed to be reworked. That was good, and anybody that doesn't believe that citizen action can have an effect should just revisit what happened there. We checked those rules. You checked those rules from going into effect. It was concerned citizens at work, and it was a citizen consumer victory.
But, here's a reality check now. We're right back at square one, and it's all up for grabs again. And if we're going to have a better result this time around, doing something positive for media democracy, it's going to be because of more citizen action and more input from folks like you. So, this time we need to make it an open public process, instead of hiding in our office in Washington like the majority did in 2003. This time, let all the commissioners come to New York City — I wish they were all here tonight — and let all the commissioners get out across America and find out what's happening in the real world, beyond that Beltway that they bemoan so much but seem to love staying behind so much.
So, as we begin our discussion, then begin with that simple reminder: it's all of us who own the airwaves. There is not a broadcaster, a business, a special interest, and any industry that owns one airwave in the United States of America. They belong to you, and they belong to me. And, my friends, now is the time to assert our ownership rights."
Related Stories
[+]
Politics: FCC Chairman Tries For More Media Consolidation 182 comments
An anonymous reader writes "FCC chairman Kevin Martin wants to relax rules on how many media outlets one company can own in one market. Democratic commissioner Copps wants to rally the public to stop media consolidation. He says he's 'blowing a loud trumpet' for a 'call to battle' to stop the FCC from giving big media a generous Christmas present."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Bolshevization of North America (Score:4, Interesting)
From TFS:
A quaint sentiment, indeed, that the private citizen is still sovereign; I'm afraid, however, that the Bolshevization [marxists.org] of North America is well underway, and that more violent notions will be required to reverse it.
The Bolshevization of North America consists above all in:
Eminent domain [cbsnews.com], if anything, should prove how highly our gubernatores esteem “ownership.*”
_____________
* Quod autem vide: DRM and fair use.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
But after the New London, Connecticut case where the Supreme Court ruled that municipalities really could take private property and hand it over to condo developers, there was a huge backlash. Eminent domain laws are mainly at the state level, and that's where citizens took action. A number of states now have laws on the books explicitly forbidding those kinds of eminent domain seizures.
- Greg
Re:Bolshevization of North America (Score:4, Insightful)
For decades now the UK has had state own/governed (or at least centrally funded) channels dominating the airwaves. We've also enjoyed independent outlets, so its not like N Korea. But news in particular is the BBC's domain. And for all that time, we have been the envy of America with regards to freedom of press (or at least the Americans who have witnessed both). You want the glossy crap, its there to, but you want more even handed, insightful, in depth news the UK's has beaten the US for a long time. But why?... It doesn't seem right.
It's not that I don't see your point that centralisation is a danger, and can lead to more total loss of objectivity. That is clear and obvious. Yet why is it that the contrary is born out in practise for us? I would say it is something that you do have control over. Your culture. Is it snobbish to think less of someone, you know could care more about world affairs, but who can't be bothered? Or is it your duty as a responsible citizen? Fox News would not get watched here. I know, because they tried something approaching it on channel 5. It stank. No one watches it still (even though its improving slightly). I would be ashamed to do so. If I saw a friend watching it, I'd say don't watch that shit. Its all sensationalist crap. Why watch the news if its not news. Watch kids TV or something. And I'd mean it. My tone would be seen as condescending snobbery to many Americans. It would not to most Brits. THIS is the reason you have "consolidated press". Here we have many Newspapers owned by one corporation, that are politically conflicting even. Why? because people expect varied opinions. This is bolstered by my experience of German news, and attitude to news. Which is an exaggerated version of the UK culture. And they have better news for it.
I do fear that this is fading some. And that the US way of toeing big business/party lines with soundbites and banalities, interspersed with adverts for the very same power mongers, is approaching. But there is still a big enough distinction for us to see the phenomena for what it is. Sadly know one wants to think they are living a lie. Or to pull your bloody socks up! Which is kind of what you are being told by people like me. But there you have it. DON'T watch crap, centralised, sanitised news. e.g. If you're being told everyday how many of your soldiers are being BRUTALLY MURDERED. And vague indications, if that, of civilian "casualties" that there have UNAVOIDABLY been, then your news is not news. Its propaganda. And you really are better off switching of the box and staring at the wall, or better still talking to a real person about what might really be happening in the world. AND EXPECT the same of your friends. EXPECT the same FOR your friends. They deserve better, as do you. I assume.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
but you obviously haven't read this article: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3318582, 00.html [ynetnews.com]
Or this article: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/new s/news.html?in_article_id=411846&in_page_id=1770 [dailymail.co.uk]
The BBC ADMITS that is not only NOT objective, but that they are VERY far to the left. Of course, I guess if one is already a socialist this would appear to be "objective" but to the rest of us that are more towards the center and right-of center this is hardly "Objec
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The beauty of the BBC is that I can see it is left leaning. And as you rightly point out that it admits to this. Thats the point. FOX's tag line is a
Re:Bolshevization of North America (Score:5, Insightful)
Britain is dominated by state power. America is dominated by corporate power.
State power is at least somewhat grounded in the people, so varied opinions have their value, because the chief parties can acquire actual power through persuasion and viewpoints.
Corporate power is entirely guided by money. Acquiring more money means no varied opinions - it means one central opinion.
Because of this fundamentally different end goals (and thus the different means needed to acquire them) American news is simply incomparable to British news. They aren't even the same creature.
The flip side to this is that America as a whole is the more economically successful of our two countries. That's cold comfort for most Americans, but that's the guiding spirit of pretty much all of America.
Parent
Re:Bolshevization of North America (Score:4, Interesting)
From the individual's standpoint, as pervasive as conglomerate media can be, it's fairly easy to just tune out and do your own thing. In fact, this path is so easy that it is, unsurprisingly, the most popular option. And it's easy because it's empowering - it often reveals the emperor has no clothes.
From the collective's standpoint, conglomerate media still kowtows to the almighty dollar, and it can be exploited as necessary. The major advantage to this is (verging on irony) is that many of the quote unquote liberal views of the day - the green economy and environmental sustainability, better education and better schools, and more federal support for programs like stem cell research and Medicare - are actually more econonomically viable than their alternatives. So when Google can push out a solar-powered campus and say, "This is good for the environment *and* the bottom line," then the money-focused mainstream media starts touting this as part of the central tenet: greed is good. If you can tie on socially desirable benefits to greed, so much the better.
So there really is no guiding the dollar, because it is entirely based on an economy of scale that can't really be guided by anything short of toppling 2 towers in New York City on a Tuesday. So the issue isn't that you have to convince the the other side that you're right - there's no Parliamentary function at hand in America's future (our levels of Congressional approval are more implicit signs of mistrust rather than the effects of recent scandals) - but you must in fact *be* right. And if you are right, the bottom line will bear you out.
This also explains a lot of America's success - the market intuitively and instinctively moves towards the best ideas for making money. This allows us to be more risk-takers, and our overall economic success is pretty much a function of the risks taken by all Americans throughout history. It's why Americans seem so cocky - there's a whole lineage of success behind us. And the price for that is, simply put, corporate hegemony - but when you're part of the corporation, you're less likely to complain.
I think one of the real challenges for both our countries over the next century is to figure out how to "do business" with Asia, South America, and the developing nations of the world. This is probably where are two disparate approaches will differentiate themselves most clearly - and I don't doubt for a second that America will come out on top. At what price?
Parent
Yea. definitely bad. it should been so that (Score:2)
What i am most annoyed with is the likes of you who come and make accusations of communism at every single move that is made to further the interest of ordinary people, like me, like you, against modern day aristocracy. The people, as in "the people". remember what it was ? if it wasnt for that, you would still be praying for permission from your
Re:Bolshevization of North America (Score:5, Insightful)
Nice troll, but you've forgotten that;
1.
2.
3.
Blaming your countries problems on the long since dead communist bogeyman is less than derisable. No sir, your problems are entirely as a result of unrestricted market forces acting upon your society. Enjoy!
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
That sounds like a cop-out to me. "We can't change it without violent resistance" is not a sentiment that you should be too eager to adopt, IMHO, and most people who claim to espouse that sentiment only use it to avoid doing anything about the problems they perceive. Perhaps you're not one of those who ends up doing nothing because of that belief, but you'd be a exception if so.
The courts are not completely bought and paid for and thi
Re: (Score:2)
That's nice and all, but if "we" all own the airwaves, why don't "we" have any say as to who can broadcast on them, why don't "we" have any say as to who can bid on the airwaves, and where is my check for the leases for these airwaves handed out to companies like Verizon that pay billions that I never see a dime of?
Don't fool yourself, you and I don't own squat.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Except the opposite has happened. In the last 25 or so years, the number of major national news outlets has just about doubled. There has been an explosion in alternative weekly newspapers. There's the new phenomenon of public access TV on cable.
Cite your sources, or risk derision (Score:2)
1 - An independent telivision station not owned by a media conglomerate.
2 - An independent radio station not owned by (or owning) a media conglomerate.
3 - An independent newspaper with circulation (no the net and your blog don't count) not owned by a media conglomerate.
I dare say sir, you are full of shit, or being sarcastic.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The three are not interchangable.
"Only, not, because they're all owned by titanic media conglomerates run by incredibly wealthy folks who, quite understandably, tend toward a conservative bent. (Fox is merely the most obvious about it.)"
Actually, some are owned by titanic media conglomerates with wealthy folks who have a liberal bent. Quite understandably.
"
Best use of the airwaves (Score:4, Funny)
If they'd rise up more often, they could call it exercise.
Well, if they belong to me, I'd like my airwave now. I'll use it to broadcast Janet Jackson's nipple 24/7. Just as we've been desensitized to violence through the massive amounts of it on TV, it is my dream that, via continuous exposure to Janet Jackson's nipple, we'll soon become desensitized to breasts and let them bounce freely across our screens all day long (not just late at night on Cinemax).
- Greg
*Wipes back tears* (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Woe the day we get desensitized to naked boobies.
Re: (Score:2)
JJ nipple even was at most a funny attempt of a declining star to draw some attention on a meaningless PR stunt instead of her artistic work (and I would say it was a success, because I know what she did, but cannot remember anything the sang). The overreaction tells is by itself more intersting, and therefore, I indeed like your idea of promoting beauty instead of violence, but your choice would be as if we chosed
Low power community FM (Score:4, Interesting)
However, I definitely want more of a diversity of voices. Low power FM radio station [panaxis.com] licenses should be made much easier to get for community radio.
Re: (Score:2)
Who are you speaking of specifically? I don't know of any such entity in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have any sort of real example of where this is a real danger? Clear Channel is often mentioned, and they own 7% to 8% of questions. If they doubled the number of stations they own, they'd still have less than 20%.
Re: (Score:2)
How? They own less than 10% of the stations. They didn't do this, and they can't do this.
"It's about limiting one entity from owning a majority or all of the main media point in a location"
Can you show a place where this has happened? Or is even close to happening? The movement is really all about censoring certain people. A little while back, when there was a controversy over rules changes, the opponents of re
In your face, Mike Powell! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Copps is not the Chairman! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Copps is not the Chairman! (Score:5, Informative)
You are absolutely right [fcc.gov]! Here is Commissioner Copps' [fcc.gov] biography page.
Well, I got that writeup very wrong. Slashdot editors: _please_ fix the title and text so as to remove FCC Chairman, and instead shift it to FCC commissioner. Or, conversely, since the premise of this story is factually inaccurate, just go ahead and wipe it.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
report issue to: daddypants@slashdot.org (Score:2)
Note: make subject the subject.... (Score:2)
MOD PARENT UP - factual error in article (Score:2)
The article is completely different if it's "FCC Commissioner" versus "FCC Chair." The guy making the remarks quoted isn't the head honcho, he's a minority member.
If the FCC Chairman had actually come out and said stuff like this, it would be holy crap, stop the presses, who are you and what did you do with the turd pile I used to call my government time.
An FCC Commissioner saying it, is still impressive, but it's an order of magnitu
Total Bullshit (Score:2, Interesting)
BTW, I honestly don't see the democrats as being much better on the same subject.
Re: (Score:2)
I totally fucked this up.
Not the chairman (Score:3, Informative)
Kevin Martin is the chairman at the FCC.
The remainder of the commission consists of:
Michael J. Copps
Commissioner
Jonathan S. Adelstein
Commissioner
Deborah Taylor Tate
Commissioner
Robert M. McDowell
Commissioner
THIS STORY IS WRONG (Score:5, Informative)
I should have fact checked it better before submission, and for that I apologize.
Re: (Score:2)
There are those of us who would suggest that kdawson should have fact checked it better after submission...
Still, respect for owning up to your mistake.
Re: (Score:2)
Send an email to daddypants@slashdot.org. They'll get on it right away!
Bwahahahahaha!!! (sorry, it's hard to say that with a straight face)
Re: (Score:2)
Speaking at a New York City town hall meeting on corporate media consolidation [democracynow.org] and its deleterious impact on the expression of minority viewpoints, Michael Copps, minority Democratic commissioner, stumped against greater local media concentration and instead argued for greater diversity of media outlets and voices. In 2003 the FCC, under Chairman Michael Powell, changed media ownership rules to favor greater corporate media consolidation [wikipedia.org] at the expense of local owners.
Re:THIS STORY IS WRONG (Score:4, Insightful)
no, you need not bother apologizing. No one believed you in the first place.
It is inconceivable that a Republican appointee to the head of the FCC would come out against further consolidation of media ownership. Your story set off all the bullshit detectors of every politcally savvy Slashdaughter. There was simply no way that it could be true, and it wasn't.
I was wondering to myself if it were actually April 1 already. It's an equinox and I pay more attention to the season and the daylength than I do to the months. I was afraid that I had gotten six months out of sync somehow.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
I should have realized we'd never get that lucky.
What a crock! (Score:3, Interesting)
It really is that simple.
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to prevent monopolies, there's other government bureaucracies in that business.
I long for the day when everything is on cable or satellite and these people completley lose power.
Irresponsible, racist, and convoluted (Score:4, Interesting)
Read the transcript. Read it. Gonzalez himself is the biggest offender. He literally blames whitey for the phenomenon of media consolidation, undoubtedly finding a use for his own Latino ancestry as a carte blanche license through which he may criticize The Man for all of The Man's failings. If you're easily frightened by the cliched Orwellian future that people like Gonzalez try to paint, then here's some fearmongering for you right now:
"That's right! Our world is run by rich white men!!" It's an understanding of the problem that goes no deeper than what you'd find at a freshmen political science class.
The entire interview is a clumsy mashup of two unrelated ideas: White ownership (framed as the confusingly converse concept of "minority representation") and corporate consolidation. The former is a symptom of the way in which America was settled, and has no place in a rational discussion about the latter (which Gonzalez gladly forgoes in favor of white-baiting).
Corporate consolidation of media outlets, on the other hand, is also a tragedy. But what it means is that the media industry is no different from any other. You can wax philosophical about how the airwaves are free, man--they belong to you and me, man, but in the end there is still a situation where companies who have money buy out those who have less. Don't blame whitey, blame capitalism. To complain bitterly about how the people doing the buying out are white misses the point. It badly and embarrassingly misses the point.
I know this is Slashdot, so by all means, please feel free to copy and paste select portions of what I've written and take them out of context, because I'm sure that works better than actually discussing the issues.
Eh ? There are still "people" in united states (Score:2)
So its not like big money white asses and oil rich bastards running everyting - there are still "people" as in "we people" around ?
Well thats a relief
Watch Out! (Score:2)
Sounds like Willie Wonka (Score:2)
Stop.
Don't.
Re: (Score:2)
Privatize them? Who gets the profit from the sale of the airwaves then? The government? Who? And also, just in case you haven't noticed, it's already easy for companies with a lot of money to take up a lot of airspace, so what exactly is your "solution" supposed to be solving? If you want diversit
Re: (Score:2)
Why wouldn't they count? However, if you want to get into some more important (?) indicators, there are 66% more national networks now and twice as many national TV network news
Re: (Score:2)